SANJEEV KUMAR SINGLA vs KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. — T.P.(Crl.) No. 30/2007
Case under Section IV. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010028922007
Filing Date
25-Jan-2007
Registration No
T.P.(Crl.) No. 30/2007
Diary Number
2892/2007
Order Date
01-Sep-2011
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Last updated 18-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SANJEEV KUMAR SINGLA
Adv. ASHOK K. MAHAJAN
Respondent(s)
-
1.KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
01-Sep-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
16-Aug-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
30-Jul-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Jul-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
26-Apr-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
26-Feb-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-Feb-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
22-Jan-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
26-Nov-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
19-Oct-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Aug-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
12-Aug-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
04-Mar-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Nov-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
14-Oct-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
27-Aug-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
23-Jul-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
05-Mar-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
16-Nov-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
22-Oct-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
24-Sep-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-May-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
07-May-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
25-Jan-2007
Case filed
Registration No. T.P.(Crl.) No. 30/2007
Case Summary: T.P.(Crl.) No. 000030/2007 On 01/09/2011, the Supreme Court heard Sanjeev Kumar Singla's transfer petition against Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. The Court found that the Registry had committed a serious procedural lapse by failing to comply with its February 9, 2007 order directing deposit of ₹65,000 in a fixed deposit account with UCO Bank. When the deposit came up for renewal in September 2007, the Registrar deviated from the judicial order without Court reference, citing Chief Justice guidelines instead. The Court held that while CJI guidelines must be followed, they cannot override specific judicial orders without Court approval, and warned such lapses should not be repeated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts